I don't have a copy of the order yet, but Judge Weissbrodt turned down
my request to testify in the bankruptcy trial by video. I have asked
my lawyer to ask for an injunction so I could testify in the Federal
Court without being arrested in the court by state officers brought in
by scientology, but I don't expect this to work even if he is willing
to file it.

Mr. Zlotoff won't file these letters, but he said there was no reason
I should not post them as open letters on the net.

There are at this moment four cases active. The bankruptcy case, a
case to withdraw the bankruptcy case before Judge Ware (the Judge who
ruled against me in the IRS case--the case that Judge Silverman now
wants filed), the contempt filing over NOTs 56 before Judge Whyte, and
the civil case against me in Hemet.

I think they are trying to burn through that $350,000 Rosen said they
"expect to spend" by the end of the year.

Having the entire legal force of the cult come down on me is why I am
so unhappy about Bob Minton folding.

I am enclosing a letter to the court I wrote October 23, 2000. On
the advice of counsel it was never mailed--though a circulated draft
of it was posted by an unknown person on the Internet news group
alt.religion.scientology March 4, 2001. I believe Mr. Zlotoff has
copies of the exhibits if you want to see them.

There are some updates.

As a result of protesting over the deaths of two young women at the
Church of Scientology's paramilitary compound near Hemet, CA, I was
convicted of Cal. Penal Code 422.6 in April of 2001. The motions in
limine effectively prohibited a defence and the judge sealed critical
parts of the testimony against the rule without due process. One
effect of sealing the testimony was hide the fact that a minute order
excluding critical documents for an appeal was in conflict with the
judge's ruling in open court. The very right to appeal was denied
without a hearing on evidence of dirty hands on the part of the
Scientology influenced court and district attorney.

May 12, 2001 I was in Canada for a picket. Due to numerous public
threats, including death threats involving a Scientology controlled
jail, a friend of mine took me to a well-known immigration lawyer.
After looking over what the attorney agreed were serious human rights
violations, he said I had a potential refugee claim. Partly because
of his opinion and continuing death threats posted by Scientology
agents on the Internet, I decided to stay here as a refugee and
skipped a sentencing hearing on May 16. I was later granted
provisional refugee status.

One of my lawyers, Mr. Graham Berry, has been driven from the legal
profession entirely due to incessant legal actions against him. He is
still fighting them politically.

January 29, 2002 Judge Silverman in the Sklar appeal to the Ninth
Circuit wrote:

"If the IRS does, in fact, give preferential treatment to members of
the Church of Scientology -- allowing them a special right to claim
deductions that are contrary to law and rightly disallowed to
everybody else -- then the proper course of action is a lawsuit to put
a stop to that policy. The remedy is not to require the IRS to let
others claim the improper deduction, too."

I had filed the lawsuit Judge Silverman suggests against the IRS back
at the end 1998. Judge Ware promptly dismissed it, and his ruling was
upheld on appeal. No new suit has been filed, probably because nobody
wants to face the litigation machine when Scientology intervenes (as
expected) in a suit against the IRS.

May 8, 2002 after 22 years of litigation, Scientology paid the
Wollersheim judgement (which had grown to about $8.7 million). They
paid it to the court on the day of a hearing where a court ruling was
expected to collapse their corporate shells.

More recently Judge Schaeffer in Florida ordered the production of
notes by Scientology attorneys Monique Yingling and Samuel Rosen (who
has been in your court and has been involved in every civil and
criminal action against me since the copyright case). The two sets of
notes are Exhibits 191 and 185. The notes document extortion
(credible threats to litigate Bob Minton to death) and conspiracy to
obstruct justice. Among other amazing things, they show that
Scientology "expects to spend" some $350,000 on top of $1,065,000
already spent on legal cases against me. (I cannot reconcile this
with Mr. Rosen's claim of $2 million on September 13, 2000 in your
court.)

Normally judges don't talk to each other, but the situation with
Scientology's rampant abuse of people through the courts may justify
you talking to both other judges and law enforcement--and possibly
even sending you this letter without my attorney's approval.

The US courts are tied with inflexible rules that sometimes violate
common sense. Using them, Scientology has perfected the process of
perverting the courts into weapons against critics by the simple means
of spending vast sums of money on unethical lawyers--when they don't
directly corrupt police officers, District Attorneys, and other
officers of the court. It is going to take an unusual court to deal
with the matters brought up in this letter or my October 23, 2000
letter.

This is being filed as a letter to alert the court of certain abuse of
process matters. It could be turned into a counter claim if the court
would prefer it that way. A counter claim would be timely because the
information on which it would be based emerged little more than a
month ago before this court. If the court feels the need, the
defendant suggests a hearing to provide a reasonable opportunity for
the defendant to carry the burden imposed by Powell, (Fed.R.Civ.P.
81(a)(3); United States v. Powell, 1964, 379 U.S. 48, 58, n. 18, 85
S.Ct. 248, 13 L.Ed.2d 112); of showing an abuse of the court's
process.

ABUSE OF PROCESS IN THIS CASE IS PART OF A WIDE PATTERN OF
BEHAVIOR

The judicial record is replete with cases worldwide and over decades
of time where RTC/Scientology and their lawyers have been found to
have abused process or the closely related torts of SLAPP suits or
frivolous claims. Examples may be found here:

"The facts are as follows: On January 20, 1993, the special master
[Magistrate Kolts] awarded attorneys fees [$2.9 million], first under
the Lanham Act finding the case exceptional because the plaintiffs
'have abused the federal court system by using it, inter alia, to
destroy their opponents, rather than to resolve an actual dispute over
trademark law or any other legal matter.' The master also awarded
fees pursuant to the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. s 505, finding that the
plaintiffs' complaints had been brought 'in bad faith' to harass the
individual defendants and destroy the church [a Scientology splinter
group] through massive over-litigation and other highly questionable
litigation tactics. [Attachment A] The master also awarded fees
pursuant to the court's inherent authority to award fees when the
losing party has acted in bad faith." U.S. District Court Judge James
Ideman made a declaration used in the decision of the U.S. District
Court in upholding the dismissal of Scientology's case. The Ideman
declaration [Attachment B] was affirmed approximately as an
unpublished opinion. (Defendant is aware of the Circuit Rule
regarding the citation of unpublished opinions on points of law; this
unpublished opinion is not being cited as precedent but for its
facts).

In a case brought against [British] 20/20 television and heard by City
of London magistrates. Reported in the UK Press Gazette, 25 September
1995. Scientology's Court Case Thrown out by Magistrates. ". . .
attempt to prosecute undercover journalist Ali Braund, her producer
and 20/20 television are dismissed as an abuse of process." Full
story here.)

Another British case (" . . .abuse of the process of the court by
misusing the documents . . . .")

A Canadian case, "The Church of Scientology was recently ordered to
pay the defendants $60,500 in legal fees because the church's delaying
tactics in proceeding with the suit constituted an abuse of process.
Scientology launched the suit in 1976."

Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (Wollersheim IV) (1996) 42
Cal.App.4th 628, 647-648 [where the appeal court found that section
425.16 [SLAPP suit] applies to an action to set aside prior personal
injury judgment, which resulted from defendant's exercise of his First
Amendment litigation rights].

California case, [delay abuse of process] "Scientology management knew
about their own torts and illegal activities in the Wollersheim and
other cases. They knew that defeat was likely and immanent. In this
context, Scientology deliberately used the new dummy corporate
structures and fraudulent conveyances to those structures to attempt,
among other things, to shield, extinguish, or lower punitive and other
liabilities in light of California's defendant's net worth criteria
for the determination of fair and adequate punitive liability.
Artifices were planned and implemented to escape investigation and to
mislead or hinder organizations seeking accurate information. From the
decision of the California appellate court, 2nd. district, 3rd.
division, July 29, 1991, B025920 & B038975, Super. Ct. No. C 420153.
(The case is still active. After nearly 20 years Wollersheim has yet
to collect a judgment now grown to over $7 million.)

(From The American Lawyer, December 1980) "Scientology's War Against
Judges" [deep in the article] "Fourteen libel suits [inherently an
abuse of process] have been filed against Paulette Cooper, New York
freelance writer and author of the 1971 book, The Scandal of
Scientology, and her publisher. Church documents seized in the 1977
Los Angeles raid and made public last year revealed "Operation
Freakout," a campaign of harassment directed against Cooper that
included death threats, obscene phone calls, phoney letters about her
sexual behavior and a forged bomb threat against the church that
resulted in Cooper's indictment in 1973. The [bomb threat] charges
against Cooper were dropped in 1975.

[From the declaration of Yanny, a lawyer who worked for scientology
and then was sued by them.] "These materials are offered to show the
chronic nationwide contempt which the Cult has shown for all judicial
process, These materials clearly demonstrate that the Cult, according
to written policy, will use any means legal or illegal to subvert and
frustrate judicial process against them, and will willingly and
knowingly abuse judicial process in order to attack perceived
'enemies'. The victims of these attacks include lawyers, judges,
witnesses, and party defendants."

In May 1994, Helena K. Kobrin and her firm (then known as "Bowles &
Moxon") were ordered to pay $17,775.00 in sanctions for the
presentation and prosecution of a frivolous civil RICO claim on behalf
of RTC. Religious Technology Center vs Gerbode, No. CV 93-2226 AWT,
1994 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6432 (D.C.C.D.Ca.).

****************************

Defendant would like to call the court's attention to an abuse of
process (or perhaps attempted abuse of process) inflicted on the
defendant by RTC's in-house law firm of Moxon and Kobrin.

The case of Hurtado vs Berry was introduced into this case by RTC's
attorney Helena Kobrin through her declaration to this court dated
September 12, 2000. Ms. Kobrin's declaration attached an Internet
printout of my filing (also dated September 12, 2000) in Hurtado,
REPLY TO OPPOSITION, MOTION FOR LIMITED PROTECTIVE ORDER. (Which also
has information on Mr. Rosen's previous sanctions "for conduct
undertaken in bad faith, intended to harass and delay, and
reflect[ing] a willful disregard for the orderly process of justice.")
Page 4, line 2 of the original states: "Mr. Berry has been my counsel
in this and a number of other matters since then, and is currently my
counsel for surrender notice from the District Attorney in Riverside
County on pending criminal charges."

RTC's lawyers misread this statement (guilty conscience perhaps?) to
indicate I had knowledge that a criminal complaint had issued on
September 1, 2000 that required me to appear for arraignment at 7:30
a.m. on September 15, 2000. It is an interesting question as to how
and when RTC had knowledge of this Complaint and Notice to Appear and
why I did not.

In any case, Ms Kobrin hurriedly prepared the character attack
declaration she filed with this court on September 12, 2000.

Though I knew about the investigation (having been arrested while
picketing and later "unarrested"), my first knowledge of the complaint
was reading Ms. Kobrin's declaration just prior to the hearing before
this court on September 13, 2000. I was not sure it was real until
the late afternoon of September 14, 2000 when Mr. Berry first talked
to Deputy District Attorney Tom Gage. (See attached accounts written
and posted in the public record at the time. Attachment C.)

Mr. Gage made it very clear in that telephone conversation with Mr.
Berry that he would seek a warrant for my arrest for failure to appear
the next morning (September 15, 2000) while I was to be in a video
taped deposition in Hurtado vs Berry. It was not stated, but I
presume the warrant would have been faxed over to LA and I would have
been arrested on camera.

The deposition was cancelled, and (to Mr. Gage's surprise) I appeared
for arraignment September 15, 2000. At that arraignment, the bailiff
handed me the (never folded) "Defendant's Original Copy" of
MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT & NOTICE TO APPEAR available for inspection by
the court. There is only one original copy. The customary practice
of the Riverside District Attorney's office is to mail this copy to
the defendant. The one I have has not been folded for mailing.

Helena Kobrin of Moxon and Kobrin knew by September 12 (the date on
her declaration to this court) or perhaps much earlier that I was
required to appear in Hemet, California on September 15, the same
morning my deposition in Hurtado was scheduled in her office in Los
Angeles. Time and distance make it obviously impossible to attend
both.

Ms Kobrin's office did not cancel or delay the deposition set for
September 15, 2000 until 8 p.m. on September 14, 2000 and that was
only due to the ruling of Judge Hart requiring a deposition referee to
be appointed in the Hurtado case. So from (at least) September 12 to
September 14, Ms Kobrin knew I was required by a court to appear for
arraignment and that I was required to appear at a deposition at her
law firm at the same time. A clearer example of abuse of the court's
process would be hard to imagine.

As of September 15, 2000, Ms. Kobrin's firm no longer wants a video
deposition and in the past month has not even talked to me about a new
time for a deposition in Hurtado.

In regard to abuse of process in this case, Title 11, Sec. 105 USC
reads:

"Power of court
(a) The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is
necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. No
provision of this title providing for the raising of an issue by a
party in interest shall be construed to preclude the court from, sua
sponte, taking any action or making any determination necessary or
appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to
prevent an abuse of process."

In an abuse of process tort it is general necessary to allege (and
later show) a specific act of abuse of process. There are many in
this case, but two of the clearest are Mr. Rosen's questioning my wife
in deposition [Vol II, page 321 and the following 14 pages] about a
declaration which he claimed was produced in this case, but was not.
It was not produced by my wife in any case, but was given to another
person who filed it in a case (where it was labelled Exhibit Z) in
Southern California. The other clear example of abuse of process is
Mr. Rosen's questioning me in deposition [Vol III, pages to be
determined] to authenticate Internet postings which had no relation to
this case, but were subsequently provided to the District Attorney in
Riverside County for a bogus criminal prosecution against me.

2: the administration of an insolvent debtor's property by the
court for the benefit of the debtor's creditors.". . .

At a hearing before this court on September 13, 2000. Mr. Rosen
stated that RTC had spent $2 million in legal fees million on me. (I
wrote the figure down at the time and it can be verified from the
transcript.)

Mr. Rosen is an agent of his client RTC and is presumed to be making a
representation before the court in good faith and with a proper
factual basis. It is on the record, and I believe he would be
judicially estopped from denying it.

RTC spent (according to their own court filings) about $860,000 on the
copyright case, and $96,000 on the (accidental) contempt matter. They
spent $190,000 on appeals, making a total of under $1.2 million on the
copyright case and all related matters.

Subtracting copyright case legal expenses from Mr. Rosen's $2 million
figure leaves $800,000 for RTC to have spent to date on the bankruptcy
case. (There are no other cases between defendant and RTC.) I have
independent evidence (a copy of a check dated September 2, 2000 to Mr.
Hogan for $46,034.49 Attachment D) that RTC is currently spending
$50,000-100,000 per month on this bankruptcy case. Mr. Hogan may be
doing other work for RTC, but his is only one of four (and not the
most expensive) law firms billing RTC in this case. An analysis of
the recovery potential by an accountant would give RTC a best case
collection potential of less than the amount RTC is paying law firms
to prosecute this case per month.

The bankruptcy opposition by RTC in this case is obviously not "for
the benefit of the debtor's creditors," at least not in financial
terms. (Indeed, the financial interest of RTC would be best served by
sanctioning RTC every penny of their claim and barring them from the
court.) The bankruptcy laws do not recognize vindictive harassment by
legal process as a legitimate creditor benefit. Thus, RTC and their
lawyers are engaged in "a civil or criminal action for a purpose known
to be different from the purpose for which the action was designed,"
i.e., abuse of process.

Defendant requests the court to take notice of this situation and to
take whatever actions it deems appropriate under Section 105 of the
bankruptcy laws to prevent further abuse of process.

To the extent there are statements of fact in this letter, they are
made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States.
All other statements are on my best knowledge and belief.